Why was Chicoine not suspended from Caucus until the truth could be determined? How is what he is accused of any less serious than what Benskin did with not paying taxes?

Because Chicoine has not personally been accused of anything beyond possibly "wrongful dismissal". There was clearly a case of two members of his staff not getting along and whose fault it is seems to be a "he said, she said"...This is totally different from a case of an MP personally owing years worth of back taxes...btw: i guess everything has been resolved with Tyrone Benskin since he has apparently been renominated to run for the NDP in Ville-Marie.

"As for the lack of advance notice to the women, it stems from the deep mistrust between the two parties. The Liberals feared the NDP would leak the news if they were given advance notice." http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1249362-harassment-furor-causes-ndp-grit-rift RE: LPC MP harrassment. Trudeau did this for poitical reasons. There is a huge difference between the Chicoine incident and what these Lib MPs did. I got these links from Ian Gillespie; YES, THAT Ian Gillespie, via Twitter. Trudeau's actions were entirely about PR reasons. The NDP had asked for discretion; Trudeau clearly refused. He was obviously more concerned with how he and the LPC would look, then how the victims would feel about this.

"As for the lack of advance notice to the women, it stems from the deep mistrust between the two parties. The Liberals feared the NDP would leak the news if they were given advance notice." http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1249362-harassment-furor-causes-ndp-grit-rift RE: LPC MP harrassment. Trudeau did this for poitical reasons. There is a huge difference between the Chicoine incident and what these Lib MPs did. I got these links from Ian Gillespie; YES, THAT Ian Gillespie, via Twitter. Trudeau's actions were entirely about PR reasons. The NDP had asked for discretion; Trudeau clearly refused. He was obviously more concerned with how he and the LPC would look, then how the victims would feel about this.

They certainly took their sweet time about the Colin Kenny sexual harrassment charge. At that time Trudeau was informed after the Liberal Party senate leader recieved and offical complaint by email on October 23rd, 2013, which apparently reprised an earlier email from August 22nd that went astray.

They then followed up that email by interviewing the person who made the allegation on Nov. 4th.

At that time Trudeau said that the first step "is to ­ actually establish, with a level of clarity what the rules are, whether the rules were followed and do it in an open and forthcoming way."

In the most recent case, Trudeau heard about the allegations first hand from one of the offended parties on a bus on October 28th, didn't bother to follow up with a meeting with the alleged victim, and then unceremoniously booted the alleged offenders out the door a week later, without the giving them the grace of a "withdrawing", or even having an official complaint on hand.

More bizarre is the fact that Pacetti, one of the accused said that Trudeau had not given him any details of the allegations -- but of course how could the accussed be given details of the allegations, given that the alleged victim was not formally interviewed, as in the Colin Kenny case?

No face saving "withdrawal" for these guys. Immediate termination, basically forcing the alleged victims to out themselves, or watch the investigation that they had not asked for dissolve.

I thought this was a good piece by Stephen Maher on how the prevailing culture and practice of zero-sum politics has totally messed up what would be a difficult process at the best of times on the harrassment allegations.

Lessons there somewhere for the political parties, - and Babble - I would humbly suggest.

Justin Trudeau did the right thing, and most people support his decision. Ian Gillespie is an NDP spokesperson & spin doctor - not exactly an objective source. Gillespie's twitter is full of anti-Trudeau statements going back months & months.

Let's go to a more objective source who isn't a member of either politcal party.

Tim Harper wrote a column today on how the NDP is politicizing sexual harassment, and Chantal Hébert agreed by re-Tweeting Harper's column and adding her endorsement.

But silence was never an option for Trudeau — not in the current post-Jian Ghomeshi atmosphere, not ever.

To remain quiet invites charges of coverup.

He couldn’t agree to any request to keep the matter private unless he wanted to live with the knowledge that at any point the NDP could go to the media accusing him of ignoring serious charges against his MPs.

. . .

New Democrats are genuine in their effort to protect their colleagues, but their pushback against Trudeau was an overreach, politicizing the situation.

This is not to blame victims who are entitled to their privacy. But it is to blame the NDP for taking its eye off the ball. The issue here isn’t Trudeau’s reaction. It is the harassment in Parliament Hill workspace.

Debater Trudeau did not need to indicate who the victims were in anyway. For all we knew the liberal mps molested some barmaids in Hull. People thinking about this for some time will come to the obvious conculsion: Trudeau played politics with this instead of simply suspending the mps without any details about the victims due to privacy issues pending investigations that could take months or longer.

'Female MPs of another party'. Really how hard was it to figure out they were NDP?

"As a leader, I have a responsibility -- a duty -- to act and when I heard these serious allegations from other MPs, I realized that one of the things that we need to do [is] to encourage and protect people who come forward with allegations like this and that's why I acted," Trudeau said. "[I] must give the benefit of the doubt to those who come forward."

In the present context it is entirely clear that he was talking about "sexual harrasment" of some kind, and Scott Andrews later that day filled in the blanks if anyone was confused by using the phrase "harassment" in the press release in his defense. A pretty good example as to how the way that the Liberals handled this issue set the ball in motion by suspending the MPs and holding a press conference, since they would obligingly need to offer statements in their defense.

He could simply have said they have been dismissed for alleged misconduct, and left it at that.

He could simply have said they have been dismissed for alleged misconduct, and left it at that.

Tim Harper says in the column that that is completely unrealistic. The press would have continued to dig for details and demand more information from everyone. A leader can't suspend MP's from caucus for no stated reason without informing the press.

And as Jennifer Ditchburn confirmed the other night, it was the NDP who leaked the party identity of the MP's to the media. You forgot to mention that as well.

But do you see what's happening here? Exactly what the column says - instead of talking about the significance of how this issue has raised a serious discussion on Parliament Hill regarding harassment and the need for a proper mechanism to deal with it (which currently doesn't exist), we're having a partisan debate about it.

You've made up your mind to take the NDP side and shame the Liberals, and aren't really interested in looking at it objectively. I'm not going to debate it much more because I don't think it's productive.

But I will say in closing that so far it appears more women agree with Justin Trudeau's handling of the situation than Tom Mulcair's. A lot of women are saying they are glad he dealt with this issue decisively by giving the benefit of the doubt to the complainants over that of his own MP's. Tom Mulcair's handling of this situation has confused a lot of people.

Justin Trudeau was on The Social today and he stated how seriously he takes this issue. It isn't just something he did for political gain. Remember, he's the first Liberal leader to ban the anti-abortion candidates from the Liberal Party, so he already has a history of showing leadership on issues like this. His opponents might wish they could portray him as an opportunist, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Justin Trudeau also volunteered at the Sexual Assault Support Centre at McGill University when he did his degree there. This isn't just a political game, but something he is commited to.

But what does all this have to do with this thread? I find it troubling that some people are so dismissive of Ferro's claim (that she was the victim of discrimination and that she was fired for bringing her complaint forward) without knowing any of the evidence at all.

Debater Trudeau did not need to indicate who the victims were in anyway. For all we knew the liberal mps molested some barmaids in Hull. People thinking about this for some time will come to the obvious conculsion: Trudeau played politics with this instead of simply suspending the mps without any details about the victims due to privacy issues pending investigations that could take months or longer.

Trudeau did the right thing by referring the matter to the Speaker of the House as well as suspending the two MPs in question unless the NDP is now arguing that the suspensions were undeserved because the infractions are not that serious.

In referring the matter to the Speaker of the House Trudeau passed the responsibility for investigation up the chain of command which I think is entirely appropriate under the circumstances. The Liberals could not investigate their own in a dispute of this nature. They had an obvious conflict of interest.

Trudeau found out on Oct. 28. Within 48 hours, on Oct. 30th, Judy Foote, party whip, contacted the NDP party whip Nycole Turmel.

After one week in which all four MPs were interviewed by Judy Foote, on Nov. 5th Trudeau announced that he was suspending the two MPs and requesting 3rd party investigation and a process to follow.

The NDP had plenty of time to speak up if they had any ideas on how they wanted the Liberals to handle the situation. Instead they just let the Liberals interview both victims. Did the NDP expect the Liberals to take direction from the victims concerning how to proceed?

In referring the matter to the Speaker of the House Trudeau passed the responsibility for investigation up the chain of command which I think is entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

There are no protocols for dealing with harassment on the Hill, which is why we have such a mess. And Trudeau actually referred it to the Board of Internal Economy. Basically, the BOIE is a group of MPs whose role is to govern their own conduct, they are placed on this board in proportion to the number of seats each party has in the House, and they govern on a whim in the absence of established protocol. I'll also point out that [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/InternalEcono... of the seven members currently serving are men,[/url] as is the Speaker. Given the amount of conversation about women feeling safe to report, I certainly wouldn't blame a woman experiencing such harassment to want to go in front of this particular group.

The real tragedy of this is that it became mired in partisan controversy with accusations of partisanship flying all over the place. What if instead, the Conservatives, NDP, Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, and Elizabeth May decided to put away their partisan swords, recognize that harassment is a serious problem, and really work on developing protocols to deal with it? I'm sure the women in all these parties would have something worthwhile to contribute, and if you can get that unanimous consent, then the process will have leticimacy and people will have confidence in it.

There are no protocols for dealing with harassment on the Hill, which is why we have such a mess. And Trudeau actually referred it to the Board of Internal Economy. Basically, the BOIE is a group of MPs whose role is to govern their own conduct, they are placed on this board in proportion to the number of seats each party has in the House, and they govern on a whim in the absence of established protocol. I'll also point out that [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/InternalEcono... of the seven members currently serving are men,[/url] as is the Speaker. Given the amount of conversation about women feeling safe to report, I certainly wouldn't blame a woman experiencing such harassment to want to go in front of this particular group.

To my knowledge, there is no precedent or established process for dealing with a situation such as this. The House of Commons has a process for administration employees to address allegations of misconduct in the workplace, but there is no established process for complaints between Members.

Accordingly, I request that you establish a process for dealing with these individual complaints. I also believe the Board of Internal Economy should be urgently seized of the matter, to ensure these cases are properly addressed and also to ensure that there is a clear process available for possible future cases where Members are alleging misconduct of other Members. The Senate has established a policy and a process that covers both its members and its employees. It is time the House of Commons did the same.

There is no reason to believe the women will be called in front of the Board. They are not being asked to investigate. They are being asked to set up a process for allegations of misconduct between Members of the House of Commons.

I won't discuss this further here because it is off topic. I just wanted to correct the misinformation.

But what does all this have to do with this thread? I find it troubling that some people are so dismissive of Ferro's claim (that she was the victim of discrimination and that she was fired for bringing her complaint forward) without knowing any of the evidence at all.

Ferro went thru the Union Greivance system which is extensive. I know I am a union local president and been involved in union business for 15 years. She lost her greivance and now is going to civil court. But knowing how lack of evidence cant help you in greivance procedures she will have a hard time in court. She'll be lucky if her case doesnt get thrown out.

It depends on the nature of the complaint but making fasle accusations of a serious nature against someone can get you into hot water. If the NDP didnt fire her the party may have been liable for keeping someone who was making possibly libellous accusations on someone's character. The accused empoyee could at least have sought a peace bond. She was lucky in her situation of losing that she got offered another job elsewhere afterwards.

Ferro went thru the Union Greivance system which is extensive. I know I am a union local president and been involved in union business for 15 years. She lost her greivance and now is going to civil court. But knowing how lack of evidence cant help you in greivance procedures she will have a hard time in court. She'll be lucky if her case doesnt get thrown out.

It depends on the nature of the complaint but making fasle accusations of a serious nature against someone can get you into hot water. If the NDP didnt fire her the party may have been liable for keeping someone who was making possibly libellous accusations on someone's character. The accused empoyee could at least have sought a peace bond. She was lucky in her situation of losing that she got offered another job elsewhere afterwards.

Fabiola Ferro goes public. She says she was the victim of gender discrimination, family status discrimination, sexism, and misogyny. She claims her employment was terminated just for filing her workplace complaint. We have seen the allegations, but I personally haven't seen any statement of defence. Most importantly (to me), I haven't heard from her boss why he claims he fired her.

So how did this woman instantly turn into a liar and an ingrate?

That's her penalty for going public?

Oh wait - her boss was an NDP MP. And she has a great union. A union so protective of its members' job security, that they're divorcing from Unifor because Unifor won't commit to support all NDP candidates in 2015.

Ferro went thru the Union Greivance system which is extensive. I know I am a union local president and been involved in union business for 15 years. She lost her greivance and now is going to civil court. But knowing how lack of evidence cant help you in greivance procedures she will have a hard time in court. She'll be lucky if her case doesnt get thrown out.

It depends on the nature of the complaint but making fasle accusations of a serious nature against someone can get you into hot water. If the NDP didnt fire her the party may have been liable for keeping someone who was making possibly libellous accusations on someone's character. The accused empoyee could at least have sought a peace bond. She was lucky in her situation of losing that she got offered another job elsewhere afterwards.

Fabiola Ferro goes public. She says she was the victim of gender discrimination, family status discrimination, sexism, and misogyny. She claims her employment was terminated just for filing her workplace complaint. We have seen the allegations, but I personally haven't seen any statement of defence. Most importantly (to me), I haven't heard from her boss why he claims he fired her.

So how did this woman instantly turn into a liar and an ingrate?

That's her penalty for going public?

Oh wait - her boss was an NDP MP. And she has a great union. A union so protective of its members' job security, that they're divorcing from Unifor because Unifor won't commit to support all NDP candidates in 2015.

Guilty as charged.

Oh wait - who was the accused again?

Again you dont probably understand the legal system big unions operate under. Its extensive and uses the same legal representatives you see in the public legal system. not everything that comes out in those proceedings is material for public scrutiny. There are libel issues that are possibly invovled. Its her choice for going to another level like anyone can appeal to a higher court but its not a good indication if she plainly lost her first time at bat that she was making true allegations. If they arent true they are libellous. If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt and damn the accused until the supreme court hears the case thats your personal choice. Once a court has made a judgement it should be ok for us to also make one.

People dont remain guilty after being proven innocent forever. But for libs playing political football trying to make an equivalence I guess that doesnt matter.

Again you dont probably understand the legal system big unions operate under.

Ah, so that's it. Big unions. I'll look that up in Wikipedia.

Quote:

Its extensive and uses the same legal representatives you see in the public legal system. not everything that comes out in those proceedings is material for public scrutiny.

But your inside sources have told you that the woman is a liar and Cimon and Chicoine are innocent victims of her false complaints. Are you in a position to name your sources?

Quote:

Once a court has made a judgement it should be ok for us to also make one.

With all due respect, which court are you talking about, and what judgment has it made?

Quote:

People dont remain guilty after being proven innocent forever.

Not sure what you mean. You're saying Cimon has been proven innocent? Or Chicoine? Innocent of what exactly, and when did this happen? Source?

This is all public statements that have not been contradicted by the union or the plaintiff. Mulcair adressed it and pretty much settled the issue. Unless the plaintiff has new evidence that wasnt covered in her union grievance hearing its highly doubtful she has any case at all. We use lawyers in such hearings. The same professionals who go to court. Judging models vary but in my union can be up to a 3 man legal panel of highly paid lawyers and judges. ~15 grand a day to hear. The cases take months to go to hearing typically.

1. He is a politician, and not really a lawyer anymore (hasn't even practiced law in 20+ years) and yet he tried to claim he was some legal expert "as a lawyer, I think the case will fail". He should not be offering a legal prediction in a case that involves his party, a potential conflict of interest, and when he is a politician and not someone who can claim to be a non-biased legal observer.

2. Mulcair seemed very unsympathetic and adversarial towards the woman in question. Some people commented in discussions I saw that it almost could be viewed as a form of intimidation against others coming forward. Rather than Mulcair saying that he would let the courts handle the matter and that he considered it a serious issue that this woman had a right to pursue, he tried to demean her claim on National television.

1- Mulcair wasnt basing it on the facts of the case alone, if he was privy to them, hes basing it on the that fact the case was already heard and she had lost.

2- Nonsense. The woman is an adult who has gone public. Her claims have to be answered. They are largely of a professional nature not of a personal nature. If she made allegations deemed false by a legal panel she then becomes not a victim but an aggressor. Ive seen that kind of thing at work by both men and women. They will disparage another co worker for various reasons of advancement and work load. If the allegations are false they need to be separated, as the NDP was trying to do, or fired depending on the case. Employers who do nothing in such cases are liable.

2- 'Treated worse'. I dont see any assaults on her person in this list of complaints.

3- For someone supposedly in a union you dont seem to have any experience dealing with greivances. She lost her greivance after it was aired out in a union/employer paid court that uses the same legal professionals who work in civil courts. That says a lot. Accusations dont get to stand when you lose. They become attacks on another persons character and that is dangerous and she may be liable if found lying. She has a right to appeal to civil court heck she can goto the supreme court. But her chances are more than slim.

2- 'Treated worse'. I dont see any assaults on her person in this list of complaints.

3- For someone supposedly in a union you dont seem to have any experience dealing with greivances. She lost her greivance after it was aired out in a union/employer paid court that uses the same legal professionals who work in civil courts. That says a lot. Accusations dont get to stand when you lose. They become attacks on another persons character and that is dangerous and she may be liable if found lying. She has a right to appeal to civil court heck she can goto the supreme court. But her chances are more than slim.

She lost on the initial complaint of harrassment. Her being fired is a separate case.

You haven't got a clue what went to grievance, if anything. My understanding is that her discrimination complaint was investigated and never progressed by her union, and that it was withdrawn at the same time as the counter-complaint by Cimon.

As for her dismissal - that just happened last month. Did she "lose" that too? Was it ever filed? Why was she fired? You don't know.

Quote:

2- 'Treated worse'. I dont see any assaults on her person in this list of complaints.

I said she claimed she was treated worse than male employees. You think it's hilarious to talk about assault? You haven't even bothered to read her statement of claim. Why don't you? Because The Great Jurist Mulcair has spoken, and you're now happy - so you're free to attack a woman that you know nothing about? Seems that way.

Quote:

3- For someone supposedly in a union you dont seem to have any experience dealing with greivances. She lost her greivance after it was aired out in a union/employer paid court that uses the same legal professionals who work in civil courts.

I have a lot of experience dealing with grievances, with employers that don't take their legal responsibilities seriously to provide a workplace which is free of harassment and discrimination, and with people who concoct non-existent notions like "union/employer paid court".

Another new NDP harassment case has just been reported tonight by The Ottawa Citizen. It involves an NDP staffer being suspended for allegedly harassing a University of Ottawa student.

Rather than starting a new thread, I'll just post the story here:

----

NDP staffer suspended following harassment allegations

November 14, 2014 6:28 PM EST

JASON FEKETE

A parliamentary assistant for a New Democrat MP has been suspended following allegations he sexually harassed a student at the University of Ottawa.

Yanéric Bisaillon, a part-time aide to NDP Quebec MP Marie-Claude Morin, has also resigned his role as a vice-president with the International, Political and Policy Studies Student’ Association (IPPSSA) at the University of Ottawa, after making what he says was “an awful joke to a female” during frosh week activities about two months ago.

But he denies sexually harassing the student, someone he says “was a friend,” and says he’s examining his legal options.

It’s the latest case of political staff or MPs being accused of inappropriate behaviour, following allegations of misconduct against two Liberal MPs made by New Democrat MPs, and a former staffer accusing an NDP MP of sexism and neglect in a new lawsuit.

You haven't got a clue what went to grievance, if anything. My understanding is that her discrimination complaint was investigated and never progressed by her union, and that it was withdrawn at the same time as the counter-complaint by Cimon.

As for her dismissal - that just happened last month. Did she "lose" that too? Was it ever filed? Why was she fired? You don't know.

Quote:

2- 'Treated worse'. I dont see any assaults on her person in this list of complaints.

I said she claimed she was treated worse than male employees. You think it's hilarious to talk about assault? You haven't even bothered to read her statement of claim. Why don't you? Because The Great Jurist Mulcair has spoken, and you're now happy - so you're free to attack a woman that you know nothing about? Seems that way.

Quote:

3- For someone supposedly in a union you dont seem to have any experience dealing with greivances. She lost her greivance after it was aired out in a union/employer paid court that uses the same legal professionals who work in civil courts.

I have a lot of experience dealing with grievances, with employers that don't take their legal responsibilities seriously to provide a workplace which is free of harassment and discrimination, and with people who concoct non-existent notions like "union/employer paid court".

Statements of claim are dime a dozen. If her complaint was never pursued by her union thats even more damning in that there was zero evidence to support jher claim. The union that refuses to hear a greivance can be sued by a plaintiff so when they do refuse its because the case is iron clad against her.

We hold court to hold greivances. Typically rented hotel conference rooms. I work in a french union in a french workplace if the terms Im using are not to your standard I couldnt care less. You want to be apopleptic in trying to hold this to the same level as the liberals who harrassed/assaulted 2 ndp mps, severe enough claims that JT took nuclear action on his own mps, but all the invective in the world wont help your case here.

A joke told in front of a witnesse. Its doesnt sound that the issue is that severe.

The NDP caucus confirmed that Bisaillon has been suspended from his role as parliamentary assistant to MP Morin, but wouldn’t say whether he’ll return to his job.

Ottawa Police have not been contacted about the matter. No charges have been laid, and no complaint has been filed with the union representing NDP staffers on Parliament Hill.

“These allegations are false. There was a witness who confirmed that I was joking and being sarcastic and that what I said was not sexual, therefore not sexual harassment,” Bisaillon said in a message to the Citizen.

In a posting on his Facebook page, Bisaillon acknowledges poor judgment and choice of words.

“I made an awful joke to a female, and I deeply regret it,” he wrote on Facebook. “In response to a comment made to me from a student who trusted me as a leader, I replied with what I felt at the time was a joke saying: ‘I will choke you.’

“I then laughed as sign of ‘I was sarcastic,’ and we all moved on. In hindsight, I realize how violent and hurtful my words are,” he wrote. “I realize how choking can be present in sexual and other physical abuse, but I did not mean that in a sexual way at all.”

Oh I was only being sarcastic and not sexual at all. I realize my words were poorly chosen but it was not harassment

Uh huh

Of course, the fact that you made your apology after you were formally sanctioned for those remarks is a true show of remorse and not a coincidence in the slightest.

People do joke around with their friends, but there is a time and a place for everything. The fact that this person was suspended shows poor judgement at the very least. I'm not going to say there was malicious intent, but as the expression goes, what's important is the effect rather than the intent.

As Aristotle says, the fact that this NDP staffer was suspended must mean there are some grounds for the party to have been concerned.

I don't disagree with you that it's possible that some incidents may not be as 'severe' as others, but it's hard to compare them without knowing what was said.

We also don't know the full facts of the case that happened in the office of NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine. The party claims the issue has been dealt with, but the former staffer who is suing says otherwise.

And we also don't know what happened yet in the case of Andrews & Pacetti. According to the press, one incident was apparently worse than the other. Some media reports say one Liberal MP just commented on the pretty pink colour that an NDP MP was wearing.

So in all of these cases, those of us who haven't heard the details don't really know which incident is more 'severe' than another. The only people who know are the MP's in question, Trudeau, Mulcair, Nycole Turmel & Judy Foote.

The rest of us are kind of in the dark, so until we know more we probably shouldn't dismiss anything.

The NDP is always being careful. This case should be resolved quickly as both sides have come forward. But to see the media pick up on every little complaint which can occur on a regular basis with any large contingent of staff and personnel, does look a bit like some liberal journies are trying to cover up the liberal/JT harassment screwups. Its like the way the coverage of the ndp office financing issue was made the equivalent of the senate scandals. Its biased media coverage plastering over significance of the issue.

And we know why especially in the case of anything that affects the libs. Its CBC thinking JT is gonna save them from the fiscal axe. Even tho he wont the libs have been cutting the CBC for decades. Its why the libs teamed up with Harper to bash the ndp in the partisan BOIE even tho they had no evidence of wrong doing.

And we know why especially in the case of anything that affects the libs. Its CBC thinking JT is gonna save them from the fiscal axe. Even tho he wont the libs have been cutting the CBC for decades. Its why the libs teamed up with Harper to bash the ndp in the partisan BOIE even tho they had no evidence of wrong doing.

Pierre, that is a total NDP fiction. The Liberals only have ONE MP on the Board of Internal Economy. The NDP have TWO. The Liberals hardly have any influence on committees in this term since they are currently the 3rd party in the House of Commons.

The NDP is trying to blame others for the fact that it decided to play very close to the rules and got itself ensnared in a scandal. Why can't the NDP ever admit it's done something wrong for once?

Even Ken S. admitted on another thread that the NDP should have been more careful in how they handled the satelite offices. They were even trying to open one in Saskatchewan - a province where they have no Federal seats. They were sacrificing the spirit of the law in order to maximize their electoral advantage.

It's not the fault of the Liberals that the NDP got itself into this mess - did the Liberals force the NDP to open satelite offices? Did the Liberals tell the NDP they should try opening one in Saskatchewan? Come on. And as much as I dislike the Conservatives, it's not their fault, either. You can't blame them for taking advantage of this lack of judgment by Mulcair.

Im still waiting for any evidence of wrongdoing by the NDP in their satellite offices. ALL parties have them. Even the tories had a sat office in the same strip mall as the mp's. But they werent cited for having their Ottawa staff in a far flung riding only the NDP was. Theres no way the NDP would have risked using Ottawa staff only to have some disgruntled worker at some point come out whistleblowing against them and put the whole thing into the open. The whole pseudo scandal was made up of circumstances and unbacked accusations.

I think the use of staffing in those offices is quite a bit more mundane. It was trying to get Ottawa staffing used in mps ridings as a principle ofsharing Ottawa's public sector abundance with the rest of the country As well as letting people live and work near their family and friends.

We see more and more of that at all gov levels. Getting gov public spending spread out of the capitals into the rest of the province or country.

The fact you guys cite this serves only to obfuscate as the NDP acted properly here in this instance. No one can guarantee the behavior of everyone when you have hundreds of people working for you. The whole thing in this series of events is that the NDP acted properly in every instance and the libs did not. You act accordingly when something is made public and you act accordingly when the victim chooses for a cconfidential process.

Incredible that you would act here as a victim-blamer and apologist for abuse, just because of your devotion to the NDP. It's this kind of hockey-fan partisanship, on every front, which disenfranchises people and makes real democracy impossible.